About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
led political entitlement. the death of bin laden presents the taliban with a moment of choice. al qaeda are weakened. their leader is dead. last month the u n adopted two separate sanctions regimes creating a clear distinction to separate taliban from al qaeda. local peace councils havbeen established in almost all afghanistan's provinces allow 1800 people from 17 provinces to be enrolled for reintegration. we should take this opportunity to send a clear message to the taliban that now is the time to break al qaeda and participate in a peaceful political process. in this task we need pakistan's assistance. as i discussed last week as much in pakistan's interest as britain or afghanistan. the taliban pose a more wolf read to the states of pakistan as well. mr. speaker there is no reason afghanistan should be destined to remain a broken country. it has fertile agricultural land and stands at the crossroads of asia's training program. it has succeeded in the past when not wracked by conflict. afghanistan has many challenges ahead. there are security issues and lack of government capa
going to the taliban? well, it's a little confusing but it has to do with a $2.16 billion transportation contract that the united states has to promote afghan businesses and within that, in the fine print somewhere could be that your tax dollars will fund the taliban. >> in particular, a whole bunch of money is going to fund trucking operations across afghanistan to get military supplies different places and it sounds like a lot of the money that we are giving these eight various trucking companies somehow winds up and we have tracked the money. it goes from our coffers directly through big shots in the afghanistan government and winds up in the pockets of the insurgents. >> we usually do that in iraq. we did it through private contractors. this time we want to try to build up the local economy by hiring local afghans that have affiliations with the local taliban that pay off the taliban not to attack the american stuff. >> why don't we just pay the taliban directly? >> might as well be. it's our money. it's $2.16 billion has gone into the pockets of the taliban, petraeus put a commissi
.i.a. in september and expects the taliban surge and that could mean an al-qaida resurgence. >> that task has been accomplished but, of course, it is threatened because, of course, the taliban allowed al-qaida on afghan soil when it ran the country. and we believe that there's a high likelihood that would happen again. >> petraeus also expects the u.s. to shift its focus from taliban strong holds in the south to the mountainous border with pakistan. the comments come weeks after president obama announced plans to withdraw more than 30,000 troops by the end of next year. an explosive show over the national mall, revelers got to enjoy this display in what better place, the nation's capital. the celebrations weren't just here in america. over in afghanistan, the marines chowed down on some delicious barbecue. that is it look good. >> almost like famous dave's. almost, yeah. almost. >> like famous dave petraeus. >> famous dave petraeus who is counting down the days. especially july 4th. senator mccain and senator graham. >> i think general petraeus is really going to miss the troops. spending his who
back here. we went to afghanistan to get the taliban out, get al qaeda out and to get osama bin laden. we got osama bin laden. al qaeda is no longer in afghanistan. and the taliban is gone. so what are we still doing there? why are we still there? why are we still spending about $14 billion a month in afghanistan? so, mr. president, again, we need a balanced approach. spending cuts alone won't do the job. i think the kweupbdz have -- i think the republicans have just proved this. republicans have proved that spending cuts alone will not get the job done. how do i say that? look at the republican budget, the so-called ryan budget. it dismandate also medicare, guts medicaid, makes severe cuts across the federal budget. yet it still adds trillions of dollars to the federal deficit for years to come largely because it refuses to touch tax breaks for the well-to-do or to raise other revenues from corporations. well, mr. president, the republicans have said they don't want to raise taxes on so-called job creators. they don't want to raise taxes on job creators. well, to call trust fund mill
to bargain with the taliban over whether girls should be allowed to attend school." that's a pretty stark comparison, i admit, and i may not have gone that far, but frankly our republican brethren seem to hold to their ideology almost religiously. they see all things in black and white. they act as though they believe that those who disagree with that ideology are either unpatriotic or heretics and that the only truth is their truth. what they have forgotten is that negotiating with those with whom we disagree and reaching a compromise is what good governance is all about. the other falsehood here is spending is not a democratic value, as our friends on the other side would have us believe. it is a republican reality. it was the reckless spending of republicans combined with a reckless tax policy and an ideology that let wall street run wild, turning a free market into a free-for-all market that brought us to where we are today. let's remember it wasn't long ago that the budget was, in fact, balanced during another democratic administration, when we had budget surpluses as far as the eye
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)